Jarrett

Jarrett v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs

Good Law
234 F. App'x 714
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 21, 2007No. 05-71677California744 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Ian Jarrett petitions for review of a decision of the Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) affirming the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) determination that he is not eligible for compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). We grant the petition and remand for an award of benefits.

Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we do not repeat them here except as necessary to explain our reasoning. The sole question presented on review is whether, for purposes of compensation for a December 17, 1999 injury, Jarrett should *715 be considered a land-based “employee” covered by the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. § 902 (3), or a “seaman” covered by the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (a) (formerly 46 U.S.C. § 688 (a)).

The BRB “accept[s] the ALJ’s findings unless they are contrary to the law, irrational, or unsupported by substantial evidence.” Alcala v. Dir., OWCP, 141 F.3d 942, 944 (9th Cir.1998). We in turn “review the [BRB’s] decision for errors of law and adherence to the substantial evidence standard.... ” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The LHWCA provides no-fault workers’ compensation to “employee[s]” “engaged in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.